MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085466079 · doi:10.1118/1.4894874

Poster — Thur Eve — 18: Cherenkov Emission By High‐Energy Radiation Therapy Beams: A Characterization Study

2014· article· en· W2085466079 on OpenAlexaff
Yana Zlateva, Nathaniel J. Quitoriano

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomMaterials scienceCherenkov radiationOpticsAttenuationDosimetryNuclear medicineDetectorPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate Cherenkov emission (CE) by radiotherapy beams via radiation dose‐versus‐CE correlation analyses, CE detection optimization by means of a spectral shift towards the near‐infrared (NIR) window of biological tissue, and comparison of CE to on‐board MV imaging. Dose‐CE correlation was investigated via simulation and experiment. A Monte Carlo (MC) CE simulator was designed using Geant4. Experimental phantoms include: water; tissue‐simulating phantom composed of water, Intralipid®, and beef blood; plastic phantom with solid water insert. The detector system comprises an optical fiber and diffraction‐grating spectrometer incorporating a front/back‐illuminated CCD. The NIR shift was carried out with CdSe/ZnS quantum dots (QDs), emitting at (650±10) nm. CE and MV images were acquired with a CMOS camera and electronic portal imaging device. MC and experimental studies indicate a strong linear dose‐CE correlation (Pearson coefficient > 0.99). CE by an 18‐MeV beam was effectively NIR‐shifted in water and a tissue‐simulating phantom, exhibiting a significant increase at 650 nm for QD depths up to 10 mm. CE images exhibited relative contrast superior to MV images by a factor of 30. Our work supports the potential for application of CE in radiotherapy online imaging for patient setup and treatment verification, since CE is intrinsic to the beam and non‐ionizing and QDs can be used to improve CE detectability, potentially yielding image quality superior to MV imaging for the case of low‐density‐variability, low‐optical‐attenuation materials (ex: breast/oropharynx). Ongoing work involves microenvironment functionalization of QDs and application of multi‐channel spectrometry for simultaneous acquisition of dosimetric and tumor oxygenation signals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207